The U.S. Constitution is NOT an international document

[cnm]

Japan does not have any obligation to recognize any of the rights that the U.S. government is forced to provide me.

It has the obligation to recognise the rights the Japanese government is forced to provide you.

 

[cnm]

Hey moron? Both of those apply to U.S. citizens only.

To persons. For example, an accused does not have to be a citizen yet the Constitution provides him or her with protections. That you cannot perceive the difference is a triumph of invincible ignorance. It's described as invincible for a reason.

 

[cnm]

Dr Johnston described patriotism as the last resort of a scoundrel. In reality it is the first refuge of a moron.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The term you are looking for is *loop holes"

Actually the phrase is 'reading for comprehension'. I understand the unfamiliarity of such a concept.

No it's not, it's interpretation.. just like you clowns purposely misinterpret the 2nd amendment..


Who are you trying to fool?



.

 

[P@triot]

It applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only.

Again you are wrong.

Let’s see if we can dumb this down to your level. Do you have a constitutional right to vote? Yes or No?

Can a foreigner vote in a U.S. election? Yes or No?

 

[P@triot]

Dr Johnston described patriotism as the last resort of a scoundrel. In reality it is the first refuge of a moron.

If only that were true. Unfortunately for you, it was not “Dr. Johnston”, but rather Samuel Johnson who made that comment.

Seems you are as ignorant of history as you are the U.S. Constitution.

 

[cnm]

Let’s see if we can dumb this down to your level.

Voting is not the only right the Constitution (partially) protects.

 

[cnm]

Seems you are as ignorant of history as you are the U.S. Constitution.

That'll serve me right for paraphrasing Bierce's response to Dr Johnson, but at least I'm not as ignorant about the Constitution as you. That would be unbearable and it's not even mine.

Anyway, go ahead, point out another mistake in grammar or spelling, you stand on firmer ground there.

 

[Votto]

It is time to put this idiotic left-wing false narrative to rest once and for all. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. As such, it applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only. A non-US citizen has no constitutional rights. None. They don't have a right to free speech. The don't have a right to keep and bear arms. They don't have a right to an attorney. They don't have a right to a phone call. And they can absolutely be held indefinitely without being charged. They have no rights.

The Founding Fathers agreed that we have "natural rights", rights that were God given and it was up to man to agree.

They simply chose to agree with those rights in the form of a Constitution.

In other words, the US government may subvert the Constitution, which they have done over the years, but I still have the same God given rights even though man may take them away from me.

Now you are correct that the Constitution only applies legally to the US. As a result, unless you are a US citizen it does not apply legally to you, unless you are visiting you must allow US citizens their rights under the law. In my opinion, allowing foreign invaders who are not US citizens have more rights than US citizens, in many cases, is just subverting the Constitution and even our God given rights.

 

[P@triot]

Let’s see if we can dumb this down to your level.

Voting is not the only right the Constitution (partially) protects.

No shit. But that doesn’t change the fact that if foreigners had constitutional rights, nobody could prevent them from voting.

 

[P@triot]

It is time to put this idiotic left-wing false narrative to rest once and for all. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. As such, it applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only. A non-US citizen has no constitutional rights. None. They don't have a right to free speech. The don't have a right to keep and bear arms. They don't have a right to an attorney. They don't have a right to a phone call. And they can absolutely be held indefinitely without being charged. They have no rights.

The Founding Fathers agreed that we have "natural rights", rights that were God given and it was up to man to agree.

They simply chose to agree with those rights in the form of a Constitution.

In other words, the US government may subvert the Constitution, which they have done over the years, but I still have the same God given rights even though man may take them away from me.

Now you are correct that the Constitution only applies legally to the US. As a result, unless you are a US citizen it does not apply legally to you, unless you are visiting you must allow US citizens their rights under the law. In my opinion, allowing foreign invaders who are not US citizens have more rights than US citizens, in many cases, is just subverting the Constitution and even our God given rights.

You are spot-on on all points.

 

[bendog]

It is time to put this idiotic left-wing false narrative to rest once and for all. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. As such, it applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only. A non-US citizen has no constitutional rights. None. They don't have a right to free speech. The don't have a right to keep and bear arms. They don't have a right to an attorney. They don't have a right to a phone call. And they can absolutely be held indefinitely without being charged. They have no rights.

How pre-14th amend of you.

 

[cnm]

As a result, unless you are a US citizen it does not apply legally to you, unless you are visiting you must allow US citizens their rights under the law.

What does that mean?

 

[cnm]

But that doesn’t change the fact that if foreigners had constitutional rights, nobody could prevent them from voting.

Ffs. Are you intentionally obtuse or is it a happy gift of nature? One does not need to be a US citizen to have constitutional rights and having constitutional rights does not automatically permit one to vote.
Just how thick are you?

 

[WEATHER53]

You do not illegally walk over from Mexico and received constitutional rights upon stepping onto US soil

 

[cnm]

You do not illegally walk over from Mexico and received constitutional rights upon stepping onto US soil

Article [V] (Amendment 5 - Rights of Persons)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article [VI] (Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

[ErikViking]

Edit: with that said, is anyone really holding a position that the US constitution embrace other than US citizens?

Of course!

Read the thing!

Yeah, but...
I sort of missed the point of the OP. The US constitution is an internal US document, it has nothing to do with international law or anything.

 

[P@triot]

...having constitutional rights does not automatically permit one to vote.

Folks, you just can’t make this stuff up. Yes, CNM really is this stupid (or desperate). The U.S. Constitution (specifically the 15th Amendment) disagrees with you.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State...

This isn’t rocket science, snowflake. You either have constitutional rights or you don’t. You cannot have some rights and be denied others. The fact that a foreigner cannot vote is enough proof alone that the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only. Idiot.

 

[P@triot]

I sort of missed the point of the OP. The US constitution is an internal US document, it has nothing to do with international law or anything.

Thank you! No other nation will recognize your constitutional rights when you’re on their soil. Likewise, there is absolutely no obligation for the U.S. to provide constitutional rights to a foreigner while they are on our soil.

So glad you understand this. Sadly, CNM is either to stupid to understand it or too disingenuous to admit it.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I sort of missed the point of the OP. The US constitution is an internal US document, it has nothing to do with international law or anything.

Thank you! No other nation will recognize your constitutional rights when you’re on their soil. Likewise, there is absolutely no obligation for the U.S. to provide constitutional rights to a foreigner while they are on our soil.

So glad you understand this. Sadly, CNM is either to stupid to understand it or too disingenuous to admit it.

So fascinating to watch the Lefties want to believe so bad that the U.S. Constitution was framed for Mexico. Hahaha...hilarious.
It’s official, we were way too nice for way too long, we let way too many foreigners on our free ride.